Ask HN: 50 job applications, 15 interviews, 7 onsites, and no offer – what next?

255 points by throw-away1979 ↗ HN
<Using a throwaway account for privacy>

I have been looking to change jobs over the last 8 months. I am in a product management leadership position at my current job, and looking to shift to a similar role in either a slightly smaller company or in a different industry. However, I have found it extremely hard to accomplish this. I have no idea why I am failing in final rounds, but in most instances the feedback has been "You are a great candidate, and we would like you to interview with this other role. But this particular role is not a good fit"

What am I doing wrong ? Few facts about me" - I have over 12 years of work experience across 4 companies (well known brands) - I am in my mid 30s - I am Indian, and FOB, with an accent (not a heavy accent though)

I have run completely out of ideas now. I have probably spoken with 100 people during the course of 15 interviews and I haven't gotten any feedback on what I am doing wrong. I absolutely HATE my current job. I get depressed thinking about working in my current job for the foreseeable future. But looks like I don't have any recourse. I am almost thinking of halting my job search and finding some kind of hobby to keep me occupied and keep my mind off work. Any advice would be appreciated.

248 comments

[ 1155 ms ] story [ 4637 ms ] thread
(comment deleted)
If you're not a good a fit then, you're not a good fit!

I will say, in my experience, a companies interpretation of what a Product Manager sometimes varies like British weather.. It can feel like a Product Manager is something new, but they've existed in their traditional capacity for AT LEAST 25 years (using a friend of mine as an example).

But recently I've seen a trend for Product Manager job descriptions to vary more.. Sometimes being so vague as to describe some sort of wistful 'jack-of-all-trades turd-polisher'.

Perhaps it's as simple as that. You're applying as an experienced Product Manager to businesses that don't understand the role as a veteran like you does.

You also describe yourself as a Product Manager 'leader'. So you manage other Product Managers? I would think that 'smaller companies' have very few or even one Product Manager, and maybe you're seen as overqualified for this?

Good luck.

I was having trouble getting an offer about 10 years ago. I finally just picked a second geographic area, and eventually was able to find a job there. I'll never know for sure, but it's possible that the market in the Bay Area was just over-saturated with good candidates at the time of my job search. So don't get discouraged; it's not that you're not a great candidate. It could be that there's just not enough good jobs.

Also, do you not want to interview for that other role they're offering you? If so, that's fine -- but then feel good about the fact that you're the one making that choice.

How are you interviewing? Have you tapped into your network? Do you have past co-worker friends who have left and found jobs elsewhere?

Most companies value referrals much higher than unknown applicants. If you have a friend who can vouch for your work ethic and can give you straight forward feedback, that will be the best route. You'll iterate much quicker. Also friends may give you insight on the inside of their companies about how decision-making is going. Once you have sizable work experience and sizable network, you shouldn't be doing the shotgun approach. In my very first job I reached out to a 3rd party recruiter and they helped me get a job in 2 weeks from me doing it on my own for 2 months (not a software dev). After that, my jobs have all been referral based.

I've noticed a definite increase in companies doing bait and switches. They list higher level positions to attract good people and then try to offer them lower level positions. That's been my experience.
We don't do this but it might appear that way to a candidate. We're hiring people of all levels and if someone comes in who we feel we like but at a lower level we'll offer them that level instead.
It's incredibly annoying since most people are probably in better position than the new lower offer.
My experience inside and out of companies has been that this tactic is employed quite a bit. I really dislike it but it's the truth. Everyone wants a top notch team and sometimes the only way to get amazing people in less amazing roles is to bait and switch them. You are getting someone who is likely zero risk and will be highly successful in a lower role. And if you ever actually need someone in the higher level role you have someone who can do it.
That'd be fine with me as long as I'm overcompensated.
"And if you ever actually need someone in the higher level role you have someone who can do it."

Assuming that person stays long enough. I would expect either high turnover or low morale in such workplace. Partly because people resent being lied to and this is apparent, partly because the company is full of people on positions they did not wanted to do.

I've noticed a definite increase in companies doing bait and switches

Noticed that too. The job ad will have Haskell, OCaml etc listed but all that shop does is crank out Java.

Well, if you've got "hiring" people on staff already, then it really isn't that much of a cost to do this. You're basically throwing stuff onto the wall to see what sticks. Essentially for free as I'd imagine most "internal recruiters" really don't do all that much other than that anyways. Might as well spam more.
Just keep trying. You have just been unlucky so far.

A lot of success comes down to dogged persistence. Here's a great book on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B010MH9V3W/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...

I just finished the book on audible. I highly recommend it. Here are my notes for it, but don't let this substitute the book.

Talent x effort = skill

Skill x effort = achievement

Grit is required in life. Watch out for claims of otherwise

Grit is not just working hard, but sticking to it for months. Doing what you love and staying in love.

There's a pyramid of goals. Concrete ones on the bottom, like getting up at 8am. As you move up, it gets more abstract. The very top one is the ultimate goal. Grit is holding the same ultimate goal without changing for a very long time.

Grit means doing mid and lower level support goals. "Positive fantasizing" (not focusing on lower and middle level goals) is people without grit do. Short term payoff is feeling good with long term cost of failing.

Story of Buffet's advise: write down 25 career goals. Circle top 5 and do them. Actively ignore others as distractions. Point is time is limited.

Expect to change low level goals. Keep the ultimate goal in mind. Improvise, adapt, overcome.

Grit grows. 70 year olds grittier than 20 year olds. Grit can change.

Grit stages: interest (love doing), practice to be better (improve) than yesterday for years (zero in on weakness), purpose so that work matters (to me and others), and hope (in every stage) so that we get up when knocked down.

People are happier and perform better when their work fit their interest.

Practice: set a stretch goal in one weak area. Seek out challenges not yet met. Seek feedback on what's wrong. Repeat.

Deliberate practice at most one hour at a time, 3-5 hours per day. Deliberate practice is not the same as flow. Challenge above skill level. Requires a lot of effort.

Grittier people experience more deliberate practice and flow. Practice is not supposed to be fun. More effortful practice is more enjoyable (thrill of getting better).

Flow is when not analyzing because most feedback are positive. Deliberate practice is for preparation and flow is for performance.

Quality of deliberate practice is more important than length. 3-5 max hours per day.

Develop a habit of practice, a routine. The author describes rereading last days draft to start off the day. If there's a routine, getting started to practice is easy to start.

Don't be ashamed to make errors. Important to practicing. Emotion-free mistake making.

Purpose starts off selfish, but later must effect other people. Evolutionary roots in both for happiness. People who cooperate are more likely to survive than loners.

Reflect how work help society.

Hope in grit means believing my effort will make tomorrow better. Own efforts can improve the future. I resolve to make tomorrow better.

It isn't suffering that leads to hopelessness, it is suffering that one cannot control.

The optimist are just as likely to encounter bad events as pessimists. But optimists search for temporary causes for the suffering. Pessimists assume permanent causes to blame.

Pessimists say "I'm a loser", a permanent situation. Optimists say "I mismanaged my time," fixable issues.

Pessimists more likely to be depressed and less healthy.

Optimists think of failures as lessons.

Subjective interpretation to objective events give rise to feelings.

CBT aims to treat by helping people to think more objectives by observing self talk and change the bad behavior.

When you keep searching for ways to better the situation, you stand a better chance of finding them. When you stop searching, you are guaranteed to not find them.

Failure is a cue to try harder.

No road is without bumps. Having a growth mindset (believe intelligence is changeable), you believe you can learn to do better. Growth mindset students are much grittier. The opposite is a fixed mindset about intelligence.

People who believe it is their effort rather than natural talent are grittier.

People often have both mindsets. It's important to watch self when slipped up and bring the right mindset.

Grittierness require...

Appreciate you sharing the notes. I am going to keep this handy
is there a site / service that provides these types of notes for non-fiction books?
This is awesome, my kind of summary, thank you for sharing fearlessly.
It's hard to be helpful here without specifics. What sorts of jobs are you applying for at which companies? What industry are you in? What are the brands you've worked at before? What industry switch are you hoping to make? Do they get to a background check stage or no? 7 offsites to 0 offers is a pretty steep drop off but if, for example, you were only interviewing for VP of Product at series A startups in the Bay Area backed by Sequoia and Benchmark, then that's not unexpected.
I'm sorry that you're going through this.

You mentioned that the feedback you've received has always suggested that you're a great candidate, but they see you in a different role. What kind of role is it? And, is it possible that that role really may be a better fit for you?

If so, you have a choice. Either change careers or try to take corrective action and become a better fit for a PM gig.

Good luck and again, I'm very sorry. Feel free to email me - my address is in my profile.

You could have a problem with your interviewing. You may want to get someone you trust and will give you HONEST feedback to mock interview you and get some feedback. The companies turning you down, you're not going to get any useful info from them.

That and just keep trying. Its a numbers game though, if you aren't getting any offers there must be something wrong with your interviews.

> The companies turning you down, you're not going to get any useful info from them.

My understanding is that companies won't give you feedback because they are afraid to get sued. So don't expect any feedback from them. Read some books/websites on how to improve your skills and do a few mock interviews.

If you can get on the other side of the table by interviewing candidates at your current job, it might help build confidence.

Not to be mean spirited, but it sounds like you either need to learn how to close or you are going for positions you really aren't a good fit for.

I've gotten every job I've ever interviewed for that I really wanted. In the end, it's about perception and desire. If you don't go in acting like you deserve the job and can be an asset to the company, you are not likely to get an offer.

You also have to be able to sell yourself as the perfect fit. Trust me, no one is, but if you believe you can become it, it will show and they will believe it too. That's when the offers come in.

Go through your skill sets, really step back and evaluate if it's up to date enough for these newer positions you are going for.

Also, if you go into an interview with the attitude that you hate your current job, it will show. You need to make peace with whatever your current job is, find something positive about it, and reflect on that. This will help you to be positive in your interviews and talk well about your current company, which employers want to hear.

Excellent advice. You are there to offer your services -- not to ask for a job! Go in with a humble I-will-kill-it attitude
(comment deleted)
if OP could only pick one piece of advice from this thread it should be this one. my 2 cents:

1. being able to demonstrate excitement is a huge bonus. i've interviewed a decent number of people. on average 0 were excited about any of the companies. maybe a third were what i could consider genuinely excited or passionate about the technology or the position.

2. taking a few minutes to ask what problems they have struggled with, or what they're working on now, gives you a "serendipitous" platform to sell yourself: take that opportunity to work with them and prove yourself.

> I've gotten every job I've ever interviewed for

I once said this to a friend. He then suggested maybe I wasn't being as ambitious as I could be in the roles I was seeking. Gave me some food for thought.

woah... woah. don't cut off that sentence.

> I've gotten every job I've ever interviewed for that I really wanted.

the point is not that "i get every job i interviewed for because i'm that good" -- i think the point is "i get every job i really want because the enthusiasm fuels the interview".

i can say with certainty it has nothing to do with a lack of ambition. enthusiasm is the only thing i can attribute to offers i've received for positions i wouldn't consider myself qualified for. :)

> the point is not that "i get every job i interviewed for because i'm that good"

I'm not reading that in the quoted comment. But still

> "i get every job i really want because the enthusiasm fuels the interview".

why lead with that, to display confidence? Very well, interesting though that confidence is the argument to be made and so the presentation of the response has to agree with the argument. But that still lacks some sympathy and isn't constructive, when it's addressed at the lack of confidence (which admittedly seem obvious from posting about the issue on HN).

> nothing to do with a lack of ambition. enthusiasm is the only thing

Interesting, I'm not aware of the difference. I'd say ambition subsumes enthusiasm.

> Interesting, I'm not aware of the difference. I'd say ambition subsumes enthusiasm.

i can understand where your coming from: there is probably truth to the idea that... in general, if you are ambitious you will be enthusiastic or vice versa. but:

1. they are not mutually exclusive. to apply for a job you are underqualified for and disinterested in would be both ambitious and unenthusiastic. in practice this might not really happen but...

2. for the purpose of the interview, any enthusiasm is useless if you don't have the charisma to project it. ambition is more of a factor for you to internalize. it is relative to your own experience. enthusiasm is different. it's more important to externalize. i care if i'm ambitious, the interviewer cares if i'm enthusiastic. i don't want to hire someone who doesn't love the job- and if they love it i don't care if they're overqualified (lacking ambition).

> why lead with that, to display confidence?

in my experience, this again is more of an internal thing. it's not that externalizing confidence is valuable (probably more of a liability, really). it's that confidence manifests itself in other ways that are inspiring or attractive. for instance, i am pretty humble and sometimes nervous; i hate selling myself. but when i'm genuinely excited for a position, it's easier to suppress the instinct not to brag.

> that still lacks some sympathy and isn't constructive ...

your mindset needs to be "i'm really excited to apply for this job because it's totally awesome and i can kick it's ass" -- not "i'm applying for this job because i really hate my current job". the right type of confidence and enthusiasm will only come from the former. i realize this argument is kind of... philosophical?, just trying my best to generalize what's lead to any success i've come by :)

Never thought of that... I have to go to the mountain about this!
> Not to be mean spirited

In the history of human interaction, has anyone said that and not then followed it up with something arrogant and dickish?

> I've gotten every job I've ever interviewed for that I really wanted

Of course you have. And the jobs you didn't get you later decided you must not have really wanted enough. I wonder how you would have felt about those jobs if you had gotten them.

We get it, you're a super impressive person. You can stop trying so hard to impress us now.

He may also be in an industry or an area where given a certain bar of quality and a friend at whatever company you are applying to, you get in. From my viewpoint, it's super common in engineering.
He's also probably also a well off, straight, white male.
Based on what? Racist misconceptions about how hiring processes work?
Why can't it be based on HN demographics?
Which demographics? The one that has never been measured or published? (Except for age, which is not mentioned)

Or the one that exists in the stereotypes and imaginations of people futilely trying to find discrimination where there is none?

On controversial topics, we need commenters to pay special attention to posting substantively so we can keep having a conversation instead of a skirmish.
> and not then followed it up with something arrogant and dickish

I remember a comedian saying that he likes to say "I don't want to sound racist, but" and then follow it up with something that actually wasn't racist. As in "I don't want to sound racist, but do you have the time?" or "I don't want to sound racist, but can you tell me the way to High St?"

I wish I could remember which comedian this was, I distinctly recall the line as "I don't mean to sound racist, but could you pass the salt" in reference to reclaiming phrases that are usually negated by what follows.
Neal Brennan's Netflix special
Also Demetri Martin
Ah yes, Martin was the one I heard. Thanks for the reminder.
> In the history of human interaction, has anyone said that and not then followed it up with something arrogant and dickish?

Of course not. I take that to mean "what I have to say I cannot say in a way that is not dickish, so understand that I'm not doing it with the purpose of hurting you".

"You also have to be able to sell yourself as the perfect fit." - i hate this one most. I don't give a rat's ass about marketing - I'm a developer and not a salesman. 9 of 10 companies are doing this.
Some company is trying to determine if you are worth spending $1MM on over the next 5 years. Some humans are trying to figure out if you will be good to work with and make the company stronger.

Ignore marketing yourself in the interview process all you like, but you're doing that at your own peril.

"You also have to be able to sell yourself as the perfect fit." - i hate this one most. I don't give a rat's ass about marketing - I'm a developer and not a salesman. 9 of 10 companies are doing this.
> I've gotten every job I've ever interviewed for that I really wanted

Thanks for your account of anecdotal evidence. The thread needs more observation bias.

edit: I think you are onto something in terms of motivation (vs professional care), don't get my sarcasm wrong, I simply doubt you ever applied to jobs you really really didn't want. Call that survivorship bias or whatever.

The fact that you're getting onsites after phone interviews is a good sign, it's almost a 2 to 1 ratio. Although 7 onsites is not huge but is a sign that something may not be working. Let's assume you're doing pretty decent on the other fronts and the issue is with onsites. So here are some things that come to mind that only apply to onsites:

- team-fit: this is a big one specially for smaller companies, they wanna be 100% sure this new hire will be just like everyone else so they can all get along, so next time you're doing an onsite do a quick look up of people you'll be interviewing to find as much as about their hobbies, side-projects, etc. as you can and talk about those things

- your presentation: how you carry yourself and behave is another thing that only applies to onsites, you gotta be confident or let your inner geek out if that's who you are, acting super nervous and non-confident sends the wrong signal

- answering the questions the way they want you to, it might have been a while since you last successfully interviewed and got a job so brush up on what the trendy interview questions are for role nowadays, go to Glassdoor look up similar roles and see what the questions were and what answers were the best, you don't wanna deviate too far from those, but you gotta treat like the ACT it's bs for the most parts but that'll determine if you end up at MIT or the city community college.

Most of your suggestions are quite standard and do make sense. I think its a little difficult to show that one will be a good team fit. (1) you are Indian, coming from a very different culture (2) One can have more of an introverted personality or a mixture of extrovert and introvert depending on who they are talking to)... Are you an HR?
I've got ~20 years of recruiting for startups, write resumes (and profiles, etc), and coach job seekers. 50 apps and 15 interviews isn't a bad result in most cases, so you seem relatively effective in getting interviews. Whatever you are doing to get in is working.

Sometimes the resume "oversells" the applicant. I wonder if they are expecting someone a bit more knowledgeable and skilled based on how you present yourself. This is just a guess of course, but do you feel the resume truly represents (and does not overstate) your accomplishments?

How about price? You say you've worked for 4 "brands", so I'd expect you are paid well. Maybe they all like you, but not as much as the others when comparing price and experience of others.

Your mention accent, so that is obviously at least on your mind. Doesn't sound like a huge factor if you're making it onsite 50%.

These problems can be tricky. Stay at it, and maybe ask a past interviewer for some helpful feedback. They will likely be reluctant to give it to you (legal reasons, nothing to gain but goodwill), but worth a shot.

Good luck.

> Sometimes the resume "oversells" the applicant. I wonder if they are expecting someone a bit more knowledgeable and skilled based on how you present yourself.

I ran into this problem myself. One of the headhunting services rated me as an excellent programmer (I managed to get a sneak peek at the sheet that got sent to the places I recruited at). I think I'm a decent programmer - I wrote a DSL that converts Julia to verilog - but not having any real industry experience, my whiteboarding sucks and I don't do things like "default to hash" even though I actually do that when I program.

Consequently, I got no offers and repeatedly got told they were "looking for someone more senior". Probably for OP, being Asian also totally hurts, because as an overrepresented minority, hirers are looking for any reason to not take him.

I'd tell the OP, try to get hired by a friend.

What roles are you applying for? Perhaps there are other roles you would be a better fit for and you could try applying for those.

Otherwise, as others say, just be persistent. Sometimes you have a run of bad luck but it will pass. Don't read too much into it.

You are not convincing them that you will be a good hire.

Your article talks about what you want and how you feel.

Consider what those companies want and how they feel and try to determine why they failed to pick you over another candidate.

Talk to people you trust and ask for honest feedback on your weaknesses. Compare those to the things you learned during the interview.

Improve your skill, your communication style, and your contacts.

Continue to drive for the role you want, you will get it when you shape yourself into someone that can genuinely convince people you have the right stuff.

This indeed can be frustrating. It might help to take a step back and see how the onsite went. a) Think hard about how the onsite interviews went. Did you get enough sleep and were you fresh ? How did you dress up ? Engineer roles are quite forgiving in these aspects, but product management roles need not be b) "Great candidate, wrong fit" is not necessarily an honest comment. Often it means, they did not think you were fit for the right role - but they didn't see any red flags so the comment is meant to allow you to apply for other positions. Often companies have blacklist of candidates [for example, if the interview went rather poorly, they cannot re-apply for a certain period of time]. c) Do you explicitly say "I hate my job" or give the vibes that you are desperately looking for a change ?

I suspect it may be your interview style and recommend asking a close confidante about it. For PM type role, it is more about the ability to influence and earning trust. Keep trying! We all have rough patches !

I've been in the process of hiring for product management person. Good candidates (who get interviewed) often show great work experience, knowledge about product management cycles, knowledge of the products they own, leadership directing teams, etc. Really great candidates (who get hired) usually have something extra: an unexpectedly deep engineering background allowing them to understand the actual building process at a higher level, non-trivial insights into customers' unexpressed needs (beyond surveys, data-driven bullshit), etc.

To my view, the interview is to screen out the "business" types who are just repeating or rehashing well-known processes you can get from watching a few podcasts and read a couple books. Teach me something I do not know (I am not a professional product manager, so if the person I am hiring cannot tell me something novel then they shouldn't be a professional product manager either).

I was a technical recruiter for several years, and am now a software engineer, doing both in San Francisco. If you'd like, I'd be happy to chat with you. My email is in my profile.
Taking your description at face value, something is incongruous between how you present yourself in person vs. on your resumé. I can't see how otherwise despite your qualifications on paper and in your phone conversation why a company would spend their time bringing you onsite for a specific position, and then find you unfit but still want to consider you for something else. There seems to be a disconnect that doesn't manifest until that late stage. And I don't think any further online diagnosis of the problem will help. I think you should seek out a trusted individual you know in person to help you identify that incongruity. Realize, it might mean you get rejected earlier in the process, but maybe that's for the best if it saves you time in interview processes that will eventually not work out anyway, and attract the attention of the ones that will faster.
Definitely agree with the above.

Some thoughts.. I'm Indian-bodied but was born and raised in the states. When I was in my early 20s I lived on and off in India for about 5 years (about 6 months at a time). So I've had a decent amount of exposure to Indians of all types (Indian and American born). I've also worked with a fair amount of Indians over the course of the last few years.

These may not be the case with you, but as someone who has had a fair amount of exposure to Indians form India, and as someone who has coached and interviewed a fair amount of Indians for a variety of roles, the following may help:

+A lot of it boils down to personality. I've noticed a very wide spectrum of attitudes coming from Indians. I think a fair amount of introspection and awareness about how you are coming across to the other side is a really powerful tool to employ. I've seen a lot of ego and general lack of sophistication and at times class from some Indians that I've met, and I'm certainly not saying that this may be the case with you, but it may be worth considering if there's something about your mannerism / tone that maybe rubbing people the wrong way.

+Being a FOB language skills can be a natural weakness but judging by your post this doesn't seem to be the case. I think being yourself and honing your personality will have more impact, but taking a little extra care in how you communicate can really work wonders.

+You say you're in a product management role, there's generally an axis of management skill vs. technical ability. Some companies may be looking for one or the other, and in the interview you may or may not be emphasizing the one they're looking for.

+And finally there's leadership ability, particularly important in management roles. Have you led your teams to success in your career? Reflect about what got you to that point, and try and channel that into your interviews.

+Above all, stay the course if you can. If you're convinced you're on the path you want to go, then persist. If you want something else and have the runway to pursue it, then a change of environment is a great first step towards finding your next step into something that motivates you.

No offense intended in any of the above, and best of luck to you!

You are right.

The thing with stereotypes is that it lingers. But people from different generations might do away with that

Now, a Project Management position in a smaller company might require different skills. Being a Product Owner of a feature in a bigger product with broken down requirements coming from upstream is a very different job than POing at a smaller company where you have to come up with requirements based on goals.

Helpful, actionable advice. The personality piece is incredibly important, knowledge and skills can be trained, but attitude and the habits (good and bad) we bring to any role are much harder to fix.
This.

The last company I worked for interviewed some founder of a Czech IT agency for a lead dev position and his resume seemed awesome.

He worked over 15 years in IT, founded a company that had 10 employees etc.

But the first thing he said in the interview was "What job do you have? I only accept CTO"

whelp.

Unless he knew exactly what he wanted, and simply asked for that :)
Sure thing, but it came across rather self absorbed.
Well, it is not like he was speaking on behalf of someone else.

It was HE that would be taking the job -- so why not make sure it's the job he wanted in the first place?

If he was desperate for any job AND still said that, then he would be indeed self absorbed.

Unless he had not applied for a CTO role
I agree with lr4444lr: there is something going on that apparently only comes out when they meet you face to face.

We do not know you so I will have to work on the little you put on the OP... maybe during the on-site interview you come out as a bit too desperate about changing job? or too whiney about the current job? Or both?

Try to consider if this could actually be a factor: I am sure that "what do you think of your current position" is pretty much a criteria in considering a new hire, even if it is not necessarily prominent during the interview.

Regardless of whether you continue the job search or not, pick up that hobby. I love my job, but non-work hobbies keep me sane. Relying on career to be the sole provider of personal fulfillment is a recipe for an abusive relationship with your job.
+1 I am a software developer and I wrote and published a science fiction novel. I agree. Everyone needs diverse, away-from-work hobbies.
Spot on!

I'm lucky enough that my day job isn't that stressful that I do not get "burned out" when I get home to work on my personal projects.

I love my job and I love working with the people in the company. The culture is very good and not toxic. However, trying something new or building something fun, it is not possible always within the job. It's fixing bugs; figuring out processes, etc. But as long as I am not burned out at work, I still find a few hours every night to do something I really want.

Without my personal projects I would be bored to death.

"You are a great candidate, and we would like you to interview with this other role. But this particular role is not a good fit"

Why not interview for this other role?

It sounds like people like you. They want to hire you. But they perhaps they want to hire you for a slightly different role. Why not consider this role?

If the companies are worth their salt, they should be giving (or willing to give) you detailed feedback. _Especially_ if you got to a face-to-face interview. If they don't, then I'd consider that a lucky miss.

First step would be to ask, at least, the 7 on-sites for feedback. If it's insufficient, ask for more. Explain that you're having trouble at the last hurdle and that their feedback will help. Take that feedback and integrate it in to your approach. Getting feedback can be difficult, especially when it's just you. Consider giving it to some friends and/or mentors to get a clearer view. Choose someone that can bring the most amount of objectivity.

Otherwise... Attend some meetups. Consider blogging and producing some content. Build a profile that projects where you want to be (you should consider, a little, what that might be). If you're passionate and visible in a domain, combined with good skills and experience, then you're gold to these organizations. Often they will come to you.

Also consider being proactive to companies that you want to work for. Engage and see if they have any jobs. Many roles get filled without a Job Description seeing the light of day. Part of doing the above should achieve that.

Finally, consider tackling the problem in a structured way. Interview for a job that's well within your capabilities. Apply for roles that stretch you. These give you a broader understanding on the needs out there in the market (and hopefully what you're capable of).

Good luck.

"If the companies are worth their salt, they should be giving (or willing to give) you detailed feedback. _Especially_ if you got to a face-to-face interview. If they don't, then I'd consider that a lucky miss."

Really? It's been my experience that companies will not give feedback, at least anything that could be considered detailed feedback, as a blanket policy. The perception at least is that giving feedback opens up the company to potential litigation and provides the company no benefit.

I take your point, but I've seen this from a few sides of the fence and I really believe it to be true. i.e. If they're not willing to give feedback, then they're not worth their salt.

An interview process is a huge investment for a person, especially if it's face to face. We're talking hours, maybe days. Not giving feedback is really an insult.

A poor interview experience is a massive miss for a company. If they don't see that, then I'd take that as a bad sign. Equally, a good interview experience can be a huge positive.

Word will get around, and on Glassdoor. That's a very real risk, significantly more than the threat of litigation. This is expecially true in creative, engineering, etc roles.

The solution is good interview process and training, not a blanket no-feedback rule. That's a race to the bottom.

I've interviewed more than everybody else I know, and I always get great feedback on my interview technique, particularly when I hear from someone I know who works for the business. Not one of them has ever told me why I didn't get the job, with one exception.

One place I interviewed at, an educational institution, apparently had some very serious behind-the-scenes arguments and some hurt feelings between friends, because most of the interviewers wanted me for the job but one of the decision makers had already promised it to someone else. (Which is illegal, I might add.)

That's the closest I've been to "Here's why you didn't get the job..."

[edit] I'm not including the times someone's discriminated against me for daring to have a disability.

> Word will get around, and on Glassdoor. That's a very real risk, significantly more than the threat of litigation. This is expecially true in creative, engineering, etc roles.

Companies that have declined to give me feedback after an interview include Google, Facebook, small startups and medium sized places. I have not seen any evidence that you are correct.

Yeah, this has been my experience. The one time I got a company to provide feedback, it was that I "didn't seem assertive enough", which really couldn't be further from the truth (I'm usually getting in hot water for being too assertive), so I assume that it was a randomly chosen from a grab bag of meaningless-but-legally-sanitized "useful feedback" phrases.

Even if someone does provide feedback, it usually can't be trusted, and often times, interviewers can't even articulate why they're passing certain candidates.

We do recruitment software, and one of the features that just never seems to take life is asking managers why they have rejected a candidate - even though that would be extremely useful for fine tuning the process.

It seems people just don't like to be pinned down.

It probably boils down to feelings, which seems unfair to introverts and those who tend to undersell themselves (but is probably how 'society' works).
Yeah, when you're interviewing and have more than one technically qualified candidate, you pick based on "culture fit", i.e., "do they seem likeable?"

A freeform box for rejection rationale will probably never get a good response rate, because it's work for people to make up a plausible-sounding explanation for why they liked someone else more (and this explanation is rarely if ever reflective of reality; people make up intellectually-satisfying stories to justify their impulsive/emotional decisions). However, a radio box that offered rejection reasons like "bad technical fit", "bad culture fit", or "good candidate for the future; not enough slots right now" may see better response rates.

When Google gave me feedback, it was that they thought I didn't seem to care whether or not the code I drew on the board actually worked.

This despite the fact that they recruited me through their code jam, in which whether your code actually works is the only criterion.

> If the companies are worth their salt, they should be giving (or willing to give) you detailed feedback. _Especially_ if you got to a face-to-face interview. If they don't, then I'd consider that a lucky miss.

Very few companies will provide specific, direct feedback even after a face-to-face interview. In fact, their HR has likely coached them not to.

I try to provide both positive and one factor that influenced it not being a match. This sometimes ends up causing problems for my employer, likely mostly because I don't do it well, but it helps me grow in having difficult conversations and I feel some feedback is the least I can do after the candidate spending so much time and energy. I've learned to ask people first, "is it ok if I share some frank feedback?"

Just curious what's your visa situation?
This is what I'm curious about too. It's not clear if this is a factor in your case. The Visa process can be an expensive and very long process, and I have seen companies turning down great candidates because they can't afford to wait a year to MAYBE get the candidate a visa.
I think your resume is probably more impressive than your ability to interview. Learning to be impressive on interviews is difficult. I would suggest trying out a less impressive resume so you don't lead into your interview with too much of a high standard.
Or keep the resume, since that really leads to initial screens (which he's passing), and learn how to interview better. Like other commenters mentioned, it would help to know the other positions being offered and how they compare to his current+desired positions.